[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyU-XvPqiPAFjetK6Sn8GUqnX0zjLKu=fd317Cxz4KwSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:45:05 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 2/7] printk: rename nmi.c and exported api
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com> wrote:
> A preparation patch for printk_safe work. No functional change.
> - rename nmi.c to print_safe.c
> - rename exported functions to have a `printk_safe' prefix.
I dislike this patch.
It's _mostly_ ok, but the nmi naming is nasty.
Either "printk_nmi()" or "printk_safe" is fine, but doing *both* is
stupid and wrong. And you do both in a couple of places.
So please keep the printk_nmi_enter/exit() naming. Because
"printk_safe_nmi_enter/exit()" is just stupid. It's about nmi entry.
The "safe" part is simply an implementation detail.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists